https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
0x7f224dab0637 <+23>:sub$0x1000f8,%rsp
0x7fc63563a72d <+29>:sub$0x1000e8,%rsp
We actually use less stack memory with 4.9 so it looks like it was accidently
working on 4.8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #14 from peien luo ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #12)
> The crash in gdb looks like stack overflow (unsurprising if there are 1MB
> frames). Does increasing thread stack size or reducing frame size (there
> must somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77527
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Nov 5 23:57:13 2016
New Revision: 241878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241878&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/71115 - [5/6 Regression] Missing warning: excess elements in struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78218
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Fix backported to 6-branch in r241877.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64735
Pauli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||suokkos at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from Pau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45556
--- Comment #2 from Tom Browder ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is on my "stage3" list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Nov 5 20:08:25 2016
New Revision: 241876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78039 - fails to compile glibc tests
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mexas at bristol dot ac.uk
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
Bug ID: 78221
Summary: [6 Regression] bogus warning: Non-zero imaginary part
discarded in conversion [-Wconversion]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
--- Comment #3 from mati865 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to mati865 from comment #2)
> (In reply to mati865 from comment #1)
> > Still affects GCC 6.2.
>
> Seems resolved with current trunk (GCC 7.0.0).
EDIT: It's only partially fixed, example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
--- Comment #2 from mati865 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to mati865 from comment #1)
> Still affects GCC 6.2.
Seems resolved with current trunk (GCC 7.0.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78203
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
> In my opinion, the warning should be given
Nobody contradicted you, we agree that it would be good to issue the warning.
We already know about this issue (there are duplicates you can search for in
bugzilla)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This has been worked around on the trunk, but I haven't tracked status of the
actual bugfix (making sure that if we don't optimize away the .LCTOC0
reference, we emit that symbol). Segher, do you remember if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, rejects-valid
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6879
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 Regression] ICE: |ICE: compilation "never"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I tend to think so but I don't have another way to duplicate.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77651
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[6/7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77259
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78220
Bug ID: 78220
Summary: Add 'remounting exec' suggestion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71826
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
SPEC cpu2006 on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with the simple patch:
Geomean, integer: +0.2%
Geomean, float:+0.5%
Geomean, overall: +0.4%
Notable improvements:
454.calculix:+3.7%
453.povray:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71124
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Created attachment 39970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39970&action=edit
Another test case demonstration the problem
This additional test case comes from ffmpeg 3.2. This file build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78203
--- Comment #2 from fwd ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> There is a duplicate for this, we perform optimistic constant propagation
> which
> makes i == 1 and eliminates the conditional uninitialized use very early.
Well, with o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78188
--- Comment #25 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Sat Nov 5 13:06:08 2016
New Revision: 241871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-05 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/78188
* g++.dg/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My version of the Fortran 2008 standard has:
R752 forall-header is ( [ type-spec :: ] forall-triplet-spec-list [,
scalar-mask-expr ] )
and
C735 (R752) type-spec shall specify type integer.
Actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219
Bug ID: 78219
Summary: [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the
header
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Nov 5 10:35:23 2016
New Revision: 241870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-05 Janus Weil
Manuel Lopez-Ibanez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
7896267da348b7e9f4e8c930f2b3fa41577ebf45 is the first bad commit
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@241765
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78121
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 39904 [details]
> > untested patch
> >
> > testing this patch
>
> patch any good ?
Poste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78121
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #4)
> Created attachment 39904 [details]
> untested patch
>
> testing this patch
patch any good ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc-sun-solaris2.12 |sparc-sun-solaris2.12,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78202
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
libitm.c++/throwdown.C is fixable, as it does not need the
internal functions from libitm.h:
Index: testsuite/libitm.c++/throwdown.C
===
--- t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78202
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
The log file of the libitm testsuite is totally cluttered because
it is not using -fno-diagnostics-color=never.
This happens only for:
libitm.c++/throwdown.C
libitm.c++/dropref.C
Other tests are unaffected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78217
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Similar testcase without auto, but in a template:
template
int foo ()
{
extern int a;
extern T a;
return a;
}
template
int bar ()
{
extern int b;
extern T b;
return b;
}
int c = foo ();
int d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 5 07:11:24 2016
New Revision: 241869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241869&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-05 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67564
* trans-expr.c
62 matches
Mail list logo